Sentences with phrase «rights arguments as»

By its decision in McDonald, the Court of Appeal has provided a degree of certainty as to the position of human rights arguments as defences to residential possession claims brought in the private sphere.

Not exact matches

«Be truthful and use previous experience to make the argument as to why you're the right fit for the role,» she says.

The same argument was used by southern states to defend segregation during the Civil Rights Era, but state's rights factor into issues as diverse as same sex marriage and speed lRights Era, but state's rights factor into issues as diverse as same sex marriage and speed lrights factor into issues as diverse as same sex marriage and speed limits.

«There would be valid accounting arguments for the costs of relinquishing that «right» as well.

Harper even drew on Canadian John Humphry's drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as an argument for militarizing Canadian foreign policy.

I'm going to give you the argument I've always used on NGDPLT, and I'd be curious as to whether you think it's right.

The organization... [will] make the argument that... the federal courts... are the final authority on issues important to progressives such as immigration, abortion, gay rights, social policy, the environment and corporate power, to name a few.

You might decide that this is just an arbitrary, round figure, that is only roughly right for you, and in fact there is just as good an argument for 15 % or 25 %.

The people who resisted the Civil Rights movement in the south, many of whom used religious arguments, people who classified Blacks as animals, were degraded and debased by their own actions: turning fire hoses on children, setting dogs on peaceful marchers, lynching, firebombing churches...

using your argument we would had civil rights in this country just because goverments make certain practices illegal does tat mean that what the goverrmet s doing is moral and just, The fact s the goverment attempted to use Christaniaity to bolster it claim to power through this we have the start of the Roman Catholic Church one of the most insidious evil organzations on this planet which as doe more to oppose ad kill true follewers of Christ then ay group o this planet.

Regardless, it's not as nice to have the frame of a well made argument dismissed as irrelevant when I didn't quote scripture or say I'd pray for you, right?

It is a tragic error that those of us who make the «self - help» argument in internal dialogue concerning alternative - development strategies for black Americans are often construed by the political right as making a public argument for a policy of «benign neglect.»

As a participant in that 1998 Ramsey Colloquium, a longtime supporter of the cautious use of rights language, and a frequent critic of its misuses, I was moved by Reno's arguments to ponder whether the noble post — World War II universal human - rights idea has finally been so manipulated and politicized as to justify its abandonment by men and women of good wilAs a participant in that 1998 Ramsey Colloquium, a longtime supporter of the cautious use of rights language, and a frequent critic of its misuses, I was moved by Reno's arguments to ponder whether the noble post — World War II universal human - rights idea has finally been so manipulated and politicized as to justify its abandonment by men and women of good wilas to justify its abandonment by men and women of good will.

Tenderness separated from the source of tenderness thus supports a «popular piety» that goes unexamined, a piety in which liberalism in its decline establishes dogmatic rights, rights that in an extreme» as presently in the arguments for abortion in the political sphere and for «popular culture» in the academic» become absolute dogma to be accepted and not examined.

If as you say, «two wrongs [don't] make a right argument» then why not debate @Blarg's statement instead of inciting atheists condemnation of his / her arguments by indirectly making a blanket statement about how Atheist should be offended?

Sometimes these sources point in different directions — as when a right not recognized in the past becomes widely understood as fundamental — and a court has to make a judgment between the two lines of argument.

Some Christians need to stop acting as if a.) The American Right = Christianity and b.) that «Christianity is true because it is» is a good argument

The argument is framed around the woman's body exclusively, as if the fetus is inconsequential, and pro-life advocates are characterized as being «against» women's rights.

= > that's a reasonable argument (I disagree with it), but as the amendment only has the affect of reducing the age at which the unborn childs rights are respected, the only point to debate is what age it should be.

Non-Muslims who live in the community in cooperation and peace are looked upon by Islam as equal to Muslims, each of them holding to his faith and preaching its aims with wisdom and friendly argument without bringing pressure to bear on anyone or encroaching on each other's rights.

Others have pointed to this argument as a «might makes right» argument and I've noted the old axiom that «just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do something.»

Most of the 2012 cycle presidential candidates who marketed themselves as authentic conservatives (which is to say, to the right of Mitt Romney), had very shallow and brittle arguments against Obamacare.

John Warwick Montgomery, a lawyer and philosopher as well as theologian, provides perhaps the most comprehensive argument by a conservative in his recent book Human Rights and Human Dignity: An Apologetic for the Transcendent Perspective (Zondervan, 1986) He concludes that rights derived from the inerrant teachings of the Bible give authority to the rights set forth in the Universal Declaration, even exceeding its claims in significantRights and Human Dignity: An Apologetic for the Transcendent Perspective (Zondervan, 1986) He concludes that rights derived from the inerrant teachings of the Bible give authority to the rights set forth in the Universal Declaration, even exceeding its claims in significantrights derived from the inerrant teachings of the Bible give authority to the rights set forth in the Universal Declaration, even exceeding its claims in significantrights set forth in the Universal Declaration, even exceeding its claims in significant ways.

Instead, I will assume that the case for neoclassical metaphysics can otherwise be made and attempt programmatically to show that the comprehensive purpose it formulates grounds justice as compound, grounds a substantive principle of justice that consistently implies the formative human rights of communicative respect.7 Toward the conclusion of this argument, I will also seek to identify an inclusive human right that is substantive in character.

Nowhere does he set forth the argument of the book, and on natural rights jurisprudence generally, he uses Arkes as a kind of foil for his own reservations — again, without ever delineating Arkes» position.

He finds these values as well in the handiwork of «insurrectionists» from Daniel Shays to John Brown to Timothy McVeigh, and in the arguments of neo-republican legal scholars such as Amar, Sanford Levinson and David Williams, who find a mandate for revolutionary resistance to oppressive government in the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

And I would also like to point out that the idea of rights is subjective too according to your arguments, there is no such thing as truth and everyone should just live life the way they want too.

Oh, look, Mark uses the same nonsensical argument yet again, in an attempt to prove that a fetus has the same rights as a person.

I guess Tarver ran out of arguments for his religion as all he's left with is quoting scripture (as if that does anything but give him a warm fuzzy feeling that he's right all along).

Despite my own dissatisfaction with these arguments, it is only right that I should present them as sympathetically as possible.

Indeed, Arkes recognizes as much elsewhere in his argument, for he writes with approval: «During the First Congress, James Madison remarked that the natural right of human beings to be governed only with their consent was an «absolute truth.»

Mike, not me has just used your abhorrence at the idea of carrying out an act that his god specifically commands as an argument that you have instilled in you an objective sense of right and wrong... of which that same god is the source.

Here Dowsing pulls few punches, presenting well the «children as gift», not burden or right, argument and is very clear on the immorality of separating the unitive and the procreative.

Now this isn't a super strong argument, because as soon as you tell another Christian they are wrong about something because you have the mind of Christ, they will answer right back that you are wrong because they have the mind of Christ.

Those who made and continue to make cogent, well - reasoned, loving arguments for marriage as it has been defined throughout human history continue to get branded as hateful bigots, not because they are, but because others who have opposed gay rights have been.

As Richard John Neuhaus emphasized in The Naked Public Square, the Religious Right improperly employed essentially private arguments and language of special Revelation in the public realm.

Moreover, Farrow is right that there is a public good involved in recognizing the dignity of marriage, one that gives, as he puts it, «public relevance» to these arguments regardless of whether one agrees with any claim to revelation.

lol, yes clay i am an atheist... i created the sun whorshipping thing to have argument against religion from a religious stand point... however, the sun makes more sense then something you can't see or feel — the sun also gives free energy... your god once did that for the jews, my gives it to the human race as well as everything else on the planet, fuk even the planet is nothing without the sun... but back to your point — yes it is very hypocritical of me, AND thats the point, every religious person i have ever met has and on a constant basis broken the tenets of there faith without regard for there souls — it seems to only be the person's conscience that dictates what is right and wrong... the belief in a god figure is just because its tradition to and plus every else believes so its always to be part of the group instead of an outsider — that is sadly human nature to be part of the group.

Cardinal Dulles paraphrases the standard argument this way: «By giving the impression that human beings sometimes have the right to kill, [capital punishment] fosters a casual attitude toward evils such as abortion, suicide, and euthanasia.»

However, right next to thestatements quoted, we read a passage in the seventh chapter of First Corinthians that leads us to see differently Paul's teaching as a whole: «I wish that all were as I myself am, [he repeats his favorite argument for abstaining from marriage]- but each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind, and one of another» (1 Cor 7:7).

I am not suggesting that the decision to end Ms. Busalacchi's life was the right one, but I am suggesting that Ms. Harvey's argument is flawed and, as such, contributes to the pile of emotion - laden rhetoric clogging the channels of genuine moral and theological debate.

Why is it that so many of you on the Christian right bring up hitler or try to characterize your opponents as nazis whenever you lack a real argument based on logic?

Same as: Children should not be thought right from wrong until they are old enough to make decisions (and I do not mean this in a religious argument) but its the same logic.

Christian arguments for the cross to be displayed 24/7 in a public classroom as a constant reminder every second of the day that Jesus was murdered by Jews and died for our sins won't hold up to Christian review if all other religious symbols were placed right next to it.

In the ethical version of the argument from cruelty, animal activists argue that humans have no more right to inflict suffering or pain on a sentient being, such as a raccoon, than they would have a right to inflict pain on a mentally retarded child.

[37] In the ethical version of the argument from cruelty, animal activists argue that humans have no more right to inflict suffering or pain on a sentient being, such as a raccoon, than they would have a right to inflict pain on a mentally retarded child.

So Brad is just some atheist pretending to be a Christian and throwing as many bad arguments into a sentence as possible, right.

As one Catholic official puts it, «The rhetoric and arguments aimed at marginalizing the Religious Right might one day be turned against us.»

Unlikely as it may be for the Court to go beyond the arguments presented by the parties themselves to rule RFRA unconstitutional, the phrase «extreme religious liberty rights» is one defenders of religious liberty ought to prepare to hear a lot of in the coming years.

Locke does not reiterate but perhaps implies Hobbes's argument for equality because each of us is capable, as a biological entity, of killing any other under the right circumstances.